The Judgment on Kim Keon-hee Case That Turned a Woman into a “Non-Entity”

 

In its January 28 first-instance ruling, the court partially upheld only the charge of accepting a bribe for mediation (influence peddling) under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, among the allegations brought against Mrs. Kim (Kim Keon-hee): the Deutsche Motors stock-price manipulation case (violation of the Capital Markets Act), the Myung Tae-kyun polling case (violation of the Political Funds Act), and the receipt of valuables from the Unification Church (accepting a bribe for mediation).

A “Patriarchal Judgment” Spoken in Anticipation of Being Overturned on Appeal

This is not only a problem of Woo In-seong. Even though a perception is widely shared—at least in some circles—that Kim Keon-hee was the de facto ringleader who directed an insurrection, attention and action from politics as well as investigative authorities have been focused solely on Yoon Suk-yeol and his operational network.

This is the point at which feminists become angry. It is also a verdict that most women should find infuriating. Does it mean that a woman cannot be the subject—the principal actor—of an insurrection or martial law? If Kim Keon-hee, as a woman, was in fact the real ringleader, why is there no active investigation into her? This judgment needs to be reframed so that it reveals the crime as one in which Kim Keon-hee was the principal actor; only then can it become an occasion to recognize women as political subjects.

Look at Woo In-seong’s ruling. It excluded Kim Keon-hee from the status of co-principal offender in a stock-price manipulation scheme. In other words, it did not recognize her as an agent of the manipulation. One can read in it the mentality that “how could a mere woman dare be acknowledged, even in part, in the male world of men who toy with stocks?”

And is that all. In a political environment where opinion polls have become a key metric for determining viable political figures, the ruling likewise fixed in place the notion that women cannot be agents. It excluded women from the complex political phenomenon called “public opinion”—from the act of understanding it, and even more, from the act of shaping or coordinating it.

Kim Keon-hee was not the only one excluded. The ruling also erased the substantive role of Kang Hye-kyung, who allegedly adjusted Excel figures directly to meet Myung Tae-kyun’s detailed demands. Woo In-seong treated Kang Hye-kyung’s statements as little more than “hearsay.” In doing so, he effectively removed from the evidentiary picture the strongest testimony: the words of a witness who both executed the manipulation of the polls and testified about it.

Of course, Woo In-seong already knows the ruling will be overturned on appeal—or rather, he proceeds on that assumption. What he sought was to reveal, without concealment, his own far-right political inclination while demonstrating loyalty to Kim Keon-hee. And in order to show loyalty to the power that is Kim Keon-hee, he used language of reproach aimed at Kim Keon-hee as a woman.

---

Woman = A Non-Entity?

Yet in the judgment—an official record—Woo In-seong reduced women to mere appendages of power: beings who, at best, receive trinkets, health supplements, or the like handed down by those who meticulously attend to the periphery of power. The written judgment read as though a father-like judge were scolding a misbehaving daughter.

“She was preoccupied only with adorning herself.”

How malicious and contemptuous is that expression? And yet, even though a judge used language like this in court in a case of such consequence, one can hardly find criticism that identifies this phrasing in the judgment as patriarchal and anti-feminist. That fact was, personally, shocking.

Have those who have spoken of feminism in South Korea really done nothing more than throw a “feminism” mask over petty tantrums? After insisting on social participation and demanding recognition as subjects of society, why is there silence in the face of a misogynistic judgment like this?

Are women nothing more than beings who commit crimes around power solely for their appearance, for handbags, for jewelry? The author wants people to say it plainly: argue that Kim Keon-hee should receive the maximum sentence. Women can be the principal actors in political crimes; and in crimes involving election rigging, bribery, and even insurrection, Kim Keon-hee was the real ringleader—one who supposedly wielded Yoon Suk-yeol and Kim Yong-hyun in the palm of her hand.

The author argues that there should be no retreat into the cattle pen of a “woman” who is “far from crime and power,” a “non-entity.” In order to avoid punishment, Kim Keon-hee fled behind patriarchal labels such as “femininity” and “being nothing.” In doing so, she committed a crime even against women’s identity and against the task of safeguarding women’s rights.